Supreme Court of India
DILAWAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. on 1 May 2018
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 655
DILAWAR
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(M.A. No. 267 of 2017 in SLP (Crl.) No. 657 of 2017)
MAY 01, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Investigation: Speedy investigation – By impugned order, CBIwas directed to conduct trial within six months – The case againstthe petitioner-accused was that he was leader of a mob whichindulged in arson, loot and mischief of burning of house of cabinetminister – His bail applications were rejected by Sessions Courtand High Court – While rejecting bail application, Supreme Courtdirected that trial be conducted as far as possible within six months– In the instant application seeking modification of the said order,it was stated that CBI was conducting investigation and took overonly on January 6, 2016 and one and a half years have gone byand, there was voluminous task which was time consuming and trialcould not commence unless report under s.173 Cr.P.C is filed byCBI which would take long time – Disposing of the application, theCourt, Held: There is no indication as to what proceedings havebeen taken up by the CBI so far, and why more time will be requiredand how much more time will be required – No investigating agencycan take unduly long time in completing investigation – Speedyinvestigation is recognized as a part of fundamental right of fairprocedure under Art.21 of the Constitution – Since accused hasbeen in custody for more than two years and investigation is pendingwith the CBI for more than one and a half years, CBI must completeinvestigation at the most within next two months so that trial cancommence latest by July 10, 2018 and concluded by the end of theyear – Since order declining bail was passed on 30[th] January, 2017and more than one year has gone by, it will be open to the petitioner,if he is still in custody, to move a bail applicationbefore the trial court in accordance with law – Constitution of India– Art.21.
655
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
A
AInvestigation: In number of case, investigations remainpending for unduly long time which is not conducive toadministration of criminal justice – There is need for timelines forcompleting investigation and for having in-house oversightmechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid downtimelines can be fixed at a different levels in the hierarchy .B
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Speedy trial – There is implicitright under Art.21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedyinvestigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial – To determinewhether undue delay has occurred, one must have regard to natureCof offence, number of accused and witnesses, workload of the courtand the investigating agency, systemic delays – Inordinate delaymay be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly whenaccused is in custody so that prosecution does not becomepersecution – Court has to balance and weigh several relevantfactors – Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribeDany mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examineeffect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Art. 21 of theConstitution, there is certainly a need for in-house mechanism toensure that there is no undue delay in completing investigation –Delay/laches – Investigation.
E
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 :[1978] 2 SCR 621 ; Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. HomeSecy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : [1979] 3SCR 169 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992)1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 ; P. RamachandraFRao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578– relied on.
G
Investigation: Undue delay – Need for a mechanism to takeremedial steps if there is undue delay in investigation – s.57 Cr.P.C.puts a bar on detention by a police officer beyond 24 hours exceptingtime necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to theMagistrate’s court – s.167(1) Cr.P.C. provides that whereinvestigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the accusedhas to be produced before the Magistrate and further detention ofthe accused has to be authorized by the Magistrate – It is well established that authorization for such detention has to be givenhaving regard to the progress in investigation – Even a Magistratecannot authorise detention in police custody beyond 15 days – Afterjudicial custody for more than 90 days in serious cases stipulatedtherein and 60 days in other cases, there is a provision formandatory default bail requirement if there is delay in investigationbeyond the said period – In summons case, if investigation is notconcluded within six months, the same has to be stopped unlesscontinuation is found necessary – However, there is no express outerlimit for investigation in other cases but delay in investigation mayaffect reasonableness of procedure specially when a person is incustody and is unable to furnish bail – Hence the need to lay downtimelines for completing investigation with a view to give effect tothe mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution – Certain directionsgiven to MHA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973– ss.57, 167(1).
Law Commission’s Report 14[th] Report (1958) and154[th] Report (1996) – referred to.
A
B
C
D
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: M. A. No. 267 of2017 in SLP (Crl.) No. 657 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-No. 27311 of2016.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv.,Ajay Sharma, T. A. Khan, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for theAppellant.
G
H
AThe following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
112
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
8
Decisions referred to
In this index
7
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. This application has been filed by CBI in a disposed of matterfor modification of order of this Court dated 31[st] January, 2017.
B2, FIR No.118 dated 27[th] February, 2016 was registered with thePolice Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak alleging mob violence in ‘jatagitation’. The petitioner was one of the accused arrested on 20[th] April,2016 and was said to be in custody since then. The state police, aftercompleting the investigation, filed chargesheet on 27[th] May, 2016 beforethe Court. However, the investigation was thereafter transferred, onC30[th] September, 2016, to the CBI along with several other cases. Courtproceedings were also transferred from regular courts to the CBI Courtat Panchkula. The petitioner applied for bail before the Additional SessionsJudge, Rohtak which was dismissed on 12[th] July, 2016. Though some ofthe co-accused were granted bail by the High Court, bail application ofDthe petitioner was dismissed by the High Court on 2[nd] December, 2016.The High Court observed that prima facie the petitioner appeared to bethe leader of the mob which indulged in arson, loot and mischief of burningof the house of a Cabinet Minister. When the matter came up beforethis Court against the order declining bail by the High Court, this Courtwhile not granting bail directed that the trial be concluded as far asEpossible within six months.
3. In the present application it is stated that CBI is conductinginvestigation and has taken over only on 6[th] October, 2016. There isvoluminous task which is time consuming. Thus, trial cannot commenceunless report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the CBI which will takeFlong time.
4. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that even if CBIcommenced investigation on 6[th] October, 2016, one and a half yearshave already gone by. There is no indication as to what proceedingshave been taken by the CBI so far and why more time will be requiredGand how much more time will be required. No investigating agency cantake unduly long time in completing investigation. Speedy investigationis recognized as a part of fundamental right of fair procedure underArticle 21 of the Constitution.
5. Accordingly, when the matter came up for hearing on the lastdate, learned ASG sought time to assist the Court as to whether thereshould be timelines for completing investigation. In the present case,since accused has been in custody for more than two years andinvestigation is pending with the CBI for more than one and a half years,we are of the view that CBI must complete investigation at the mostwithin next two months so that trial can commence latest by July 10,2018 and concluded by the end of the year. Since order declining bailwas passed on 30[th] January, 2017 and more than one year has gone by,it will be open to the petitioner, if he is still in custody, to move a bailapplication before the trial court in accordance with law. This applicationwill stand disposed of accordingly except for consideration of the issueindicated hereafter.
6. We have come across number of cases where investigationsremain pending for unduly long time which is not conducive toadministration of criminal justice. There is, thus, clear need for timelinesfor completing investigation and for having in-house oversight mechanismwherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines can be fixedat a different levels in the hierarchy.
7. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Courtarticulating the mandate of the Constitution that there is implicit rightunder Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedyinvestigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. To determine whetherundue delay has occurred, one must have regard to nature of offence,number of accused and witnesses, workload of the court and theinvestigating agency, systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be takenas presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custodyso that prosecution does not become persecution. Court has to balanceand weigh several relevant factors. Though it is neither advisable norfeasible to prescribe any mandatory outer time limit and the court mayonly examine effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil ofArticle 21 of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-housemechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in completinginvestigation. This obligation flows from the law laid down by this Courtinter-alia in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India[1], HussainaraKhatoon (I) versus Home Secy., State of Bihar[2], Abdul Rehman 1 (1978) 1 SCC 248
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
AAntulay versus R.S. Nayak[3]and P. Ramachandra Rao versus Stateof Karnataka[4].
8. There is undoubted need for a mechanism to take remedialsteps if there is undue delay in investigation. Section 57 Cr.P.C. puts abar on detention by a police officer beyond 24 hours excepting timeBnecessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’scourt. Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. provides that where investigation cannotbe completed within 24 hours, the accused has to be produced beforethe Magistrate and further detention of the accused has to be authorizedby the Magistrate. It is well established that authorization for suchCdetention has to be given having regard to the progress in investigation.Even a Magistrate cannot authorise detention in police custody beyond15 days. After judicial custody for more than 90 days in serious casesstipulated therein and 60 days in other cases, there is a provision formandatory default bail requirement if there is delay in investigationbeyond the said period. In summons case, if investigation is not concludedDwithin six months, the same has to be stopped unless continuation isfound necessary[5]. However, there is no express outer limit forinvestigation in other cases but delay in investigation may affectreasonableness of procedure specially when a person is in custody andis unable to furnish bail. Hence the need to lay down timelines forEcompleting investigation with a view to give effect to the mandate ofArticle 21 of the Constitution. This aspect has also been discussed inthe Law Commission’s Report including the 14[th] report (1958) and154[th] Report (1996) as noticed by this Court[6.].
9. In view of the above, we implead Union of India as a party.FWe have asked learned ASG to represent the Union of India. We directthe Ministry of Home Affairs to have inter action on the subject with allthe Central and State investigating agencies on or before May 31, 2018either on video conferencing or in person. The points emerging from theinter action may be recorded and examined by an appropriate committeeGwhich may constituted for the purpose. The said committee may give itsreport latest by June 30, 2018. We direct the MHA to place on recordamong other data, the figures of all pending investigations beyond one3 (1992) 1 SCC 225 4 (2002) 4 SCC 5785 167(5) Cr.P.C.H6 Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67, paras 30 and 31.
DILAWAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
year and action plan to complete them in a proposed time frame. Withregard to State agencies also such information may be collected andfurnished by the MHA.
Put up the matter for further consideration on 3[rd] July, 2018.
Devika Gujral
Application disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H